01-2-9335 Charles v. N.J. Div. of Developmental Disabilities, App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) The New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities found that appellant, a van driver responsible for transporting disabled persons, had violated Danielle’s Law. It imposed a $5,000 fine. Appellant challenged that decision and the agency’s denial of his request for an administrative hearing. The law says that staff members at facilities for persons with developmental disabilities or traumatic brain injuries, or staff of public or private agencies who work with those clients, must call 911 for assistance if a client suffers a life-threatening emergency. The agency found that appellant had failed to report an incident in which one of the passengers in the van he had been driving fell from the van and hit her head. Appellant claimed that he was not contacted during the investigation of the incident, and he did not received notice of the violation, sent 10 months after the incident, because it was sent to his mother’s address, and he was there only sporadically. The panel reversed and remanded. It found that the DDD’s regulations enforcing the law—which contained provisions governing the investigation of alleged violations; the imposition of penalties where violations were found; service of penalty notices by certified mail or personal service; and the right to an administrative hearing to challenge the penalties—had no provision for an extension of the 30-day period within which to request a hearing, although due process principles required that the agency provide that opportunity and that appellant had presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he had received the initial notice of the violation. The panel also noted that, having waited 10 months to send the notice, the DDD could not be heard to complain that time was of the essence in finalizing the penalty. In light of the agency’s deficient procedures, the evidence of nonreceipt of the initial notice and the time that had elapsed since appellant first attempted to assert his right to a hearing, the panel remanded the matter to the agency for an OAL hearing on the merits of the appeal.
01-2-9347 Ali-X v. N.J. Dep’t of Corrections, App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Kaseem Ali-X is an inmate serving a sentence of 35 years to life. He appealed the Department of Corrections’ denial of his petition for rulemaking. In September 2012, Ali-X submitted a petition for rulemaking pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(f) and N.J.A.C. 10A:1-1.2 to the department’s Administrative Rules Unit, requesting that the department promulgate a new rule to allow inmates to file personal property claims pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. Appellant requested that the department amend N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 to 6.4, which governs the procedures for inmates seeking reimbursement for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property. After Ali-X filed his petition, the department advised him that his petition was deficient because he failed to specify how the rule should be changed, and that his petition therefore failed to comply with procedural requirements to change an existing rule. The department moved to dismiss Ali-X’s appeal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:1-1.2. Ali-X asserted that he should be permitted to bring claims for lost property under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act for a trial in the Law Division. He argued that N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 bars his ability to proceed in the Law Division, and that bar, he argued, unfairly infringes on his rights. The appellate panel disagreed. Ali-X’s petition was deficient because it did not clearly and concisely summarize the suggested change to N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 as required by N.J.A.C. 10A:1-1.2(b) for promulgation of a new rule and was not considered for that reason. The existing regulations provided appellant and other inmates with adequate process. The department was only required to redress allegedly illegal interference with an inmate’s personal property with provision of a meaningful post-deprivation remedy. Such a remedy existed in this case. Appellant could file a claim with the department and seek review of that decision in the Appellate Division.
